The left invariably requires censorship in order to give the impression of prevailing and being strong. Those who’s interests are in line with their values implement it.
Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
461–470 of 1001 posts
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#462Imagine you posting “nazi bandits” on a WW2 video and seeing it vanish after 15s. We in the IT community need to disassociate with google as much as we possibly can. Free speech is more important than ever.
The CCP is not the same as nazis. This is silly.
communism has killed more people than any other ideology or regime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European...
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I suspect the formula is changing if only because the sheer volume of spammy type stuff skyrocketing to the top seems to have subsided. There was a short run where a lot of nearly raw spam type posts were quickly rising to the top, and sticking a long time despite almost / all the comments being about how terrible the spam is.
That's why software should be open source. Ironically the article about google censorship ended up discussing whether there is hn censorship or whether it just magic ranking. With open source everybody could check whether there was censorship outside of any smart ranking algorithm.
No, you cannot open source a fraud prevention mechanism. You want to keep it secret.
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#464N/A
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does it say that hate speech is about immutable characteristics? Is that your subjective personal definition? Advertisers really don't care that much (and I'm speaking as a 12 year adtech veteran). They play into popular culture and are being carried along with the increasingly sensitive social environment online. Also we're talking about comments, not video content, and it's futile to try and control how other…
Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really c…
Encouraging violence has clear rules under the 1st amendment which is covered in my original comment.
What does "expressing hate" mean? Why does it matter what characteristics are used? Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? If you remove the characteristics, then it just says hate speech is speech that expresses hate. It's a tautological and useless definition.
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is it replaced with "I'm an American company?" There's a deep rabbit-hole of hyper-nationalism right next to the deep rabbit-hole of hyper-corporatism. Does a YouTube beholden to the US government get banned from being used in China at all? And if it does, what happens when China creates a competing product that is more successful than YouTube, and YouTube gets displaced globally by a product that is beholden to…
Wikipedia is the way to go. Why have the hypercorporatists and hypernationalists not replaced it??? Because fuckers in both those camps think it has to make money as a condition to exist. It's their weakness. Requires imagination to exploit.
> Why have the hypercorporatists and hypernationalists not replaced it???
It’s not profitable.
Nowhere near as many people would donate money/time/edits/content to Wikipedia if it wasn’t a registered non-profit - nor would they receive donated/subsidised hosting services from their providers - and if it’s for-profit they would need to run ads - and there’s no money in generic ads so they have to be either content-based ads (which immediately creates a perverse incentive for articles to be edited or biased in favour of the advertiser, which devalues the content of the encyclopaedia - or behavioural/tracking ads, which won’t be here for long due to expected incoming changes in browser handling of cookies and cross-site content) - which leaves behind only paywalling the encyclopaedia - and we saw how well that worked-out for Britannica, Collier’s, and Encarta.
Wikipedia has a high-value because it’s a non-profit - as contradictory as that sounds.
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CCP is not the same as nazis. This is silly.
communism has killed more people than any other ideology or regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European...
I simply said they were not the same. You and another commenter have incorrectly inferred that I was talking about their victims. Says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, but there is a pretty clear difference between censorship to protect an individual and censorship of critisising a government.
Are we playing "what censorship is OK censorship" now? Who determines that "pretty clear difference?" Isn't the point of being against censorship is that nothing is above the interests of public scrutiny? Partial censorship seems fundamentally contradictory in terms of the underlying moral justification.
Are we playing "what censorship is OK censorship" now?
No. It's a game that was played out long ago by responsible organizations. It's just that the tech industry is stumbling upon it these days.
For example, responsible media outlets don't publish information about rape victims or suicides unless there is a compelling public interest.
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by not "actually working"? What is a "conflict-free environment"? What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Do people within those populations never say hateful things, even to each other? How do you know they never participated in any forums? This sounds like an awful lot of assumptions.
>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.
> it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.
Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included.
Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?
Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, can't agree. The rules we had in the last decade weren't actually working; they only appeared to work. They looked like they were creating conflict-free environments, but they were really creating environments where, in general, minority populations hate speech was targeted against weren't using the tools or participating in the forums that had a laissez-faire attitude on such things.
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing. Conflict can resolve tension and raise long-hidden concerns to the forefront. Conflict is a natural part of human interaction.
But the conflict was and still is directed at minority groups for their being a minority. There is nothing to resolve there, a Trans person will not stop being trans, a gay person stop being gay or a woman stop being a woman. These people genuinely need protection and safe spaces.
(I'm also aware that these are not easy issues to tackle but they haven't been met with a lot of care in the last few years)